Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Simulist » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:31 pm
Mr. Graham, a staunch Israel supporter, added: "The president needs to be reassuring to the Israelis that the policy of the United States is etched in stone: we will do everything, including military action, to stop a nuclear-armed Iran."
by seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:35 pm
by Simulist » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:54 pm
by seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:19 pm
by Ben D » Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:00 am
Israel will strike Iran without warning US - intelligence source
RT Published: 28 February, 2012, 09:32
Israeli officials say if they decide to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, they will do so without the prior consent or knowledge of the US, according to an AP report citing leaked US intelligence.
The message was conveyed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to a number of senior US officials visiting the country, the news agency said, citing a US intelligence source. The official spoke about the sensitive strategic negotiations on condition of anonymity. Both the US and Israel declined to make any official comment.
Tel Aviv insists its strategy is necessary in order to protect Washington from being blamed for failing to stop an Israeli attack, should it take place. But it may also signify Israeli frustration over America’s position on the conflict.
America has told its Middle Eastern ally that it will neither take military action against Iran nor back unilateral action on the part of Israel. Washington favors sanctions over brute force as a means to stop Iran’s controversial nuclear program.
The news of Israel’s unilateral intentions comes ahead of a key visit to the US by Netanyahu, planned for early March. The Israeli premier reportedly ordered his ministers not to publicly discuss the Iranian nuclear program in an apparent damage limitation move ahead of his trip. The report of the “gagging order” came a day after Defense Minister Barak gave a lengthy TV interview in which he spoke of the danger posed by Iran.
by Simulist » Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:21 am
by Nordic » Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:30 am
by AlicetheKurious » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:12 am
by 82_28 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:20 am
by seemslikeadream » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:08 pm
Gen. McCaffrey privately briefs NBC execs on war with Iran
BY GLENN GREENWALD
(Credit: Reuters/Eliana Aponte)
(updated below – Update II [Wed: response from NBC])
In 2009, The New York Times‘ David Barstow won the Pulitzer Prize for his two-part series on the use by television networks of retired Generals posing as objective “analysts” at exactly the same time they were participating — unbeknownst to viewers — in a Pentagon propaganda program. Many were also plagued by undisclosed conflicts of interest whereby they had financial stakes in many of the policies they were pushing on-air. One of the prime offenders was Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who was not only a member of the Pentagon’s propaganda program, but also, according to Barstow’s second stand-alone article, had his own “Military-Industrial-Media Complex,” deeply invested in many of the very war policies he pushed and advocated while posing as an NBC “analyst”:
Through seven years of war an exclusive club has quietly flourished at the intersection of network news and wartime commerce. Its members, mostly retired generals, have had a foot in both camps as influential network military analysts and defense industry rainmakers. It is a deeply opaque world, a place of privileged access to senior government officials, where war commentary can fit hand in glove with undisclosed commercial interests and network executives are sometimes oblivious to possible conflicts of interest.
Few illustrate the submerged complexities of this world better than Barry McCaffrey. . . . General McCaffrey has immersed himself in businesses that have grown with the fight against terrorism. . . .
Many retired officers hold a perch in the world of military contracting, but General McCaffrey is among a select few who also command platforms in the news media and as government advisers on military matters. These overlapping roles offer them an array of opportunities to advance policy goals as well as business objectives. But with their business ties left undisclosed, it can be difficult for policy makers and the public to fully understand their interests.
On NBC and in other public forums, General McCaffrey has consistently advocated wartime policies and spending priorities that are in line with his corporate interests. But those interests are not described to NBC’s viewers. He is held out as a dispassionate expert, not someone who helps companies win contracts related to the wars he discusses on television.
Despite Barstow’s Pulitzer, neither Brian Williams nor anyone else at NBC News ever mentioned any of these groundbreaking stories to their viewers (even as Williams reported on other Pulitzer awards that year); the controversy over the Pentagon propaganda program was simply suppressed. And NBC continued to feature those same ex-Generals as “analysts” — including McCaffrey — as though the whole thing never happened.
Apparently, not only does NBC continue to present McCaffrey to its viewers as some sort of objective analyst, but NBC News executives use him as some kind of private consultant and briefer on the news. On January 12, 2012, McCaffrey presented a seminar to roughly 20 NBC executives and producers — including NBC News President Steve Capus — entitled “Iran, Nukes & Oil: The Gulf Confrontation.” We’ve obtained the Power Point document McCaffrey prepared and distributed for his presentation, and in it, he all but predicts war with Iran within the next 90 days: one that is likely to be started by them. The first page of the breathlessly hawkish document is entitled “Iran & the Gulf: Creeping Toward War,” and the first sentence excitedly proclaims (click to enlarge):
Most of the report emphasizes the likelihood that Iran — not the U.S. — will act aggressively and trigger a war:
He adds: “We should not view the Iranian rhetoric as empty threats. They are likely to further escalate. There is great opportunity for miscalculation on their part. . . . They will not under any circumstances actually be deterred from going nuclear. They will achieve initial nuclear capability within 36 months.” About a war with Iran, he says: “Israel would welcome such a confrontation. They have an existential threat to their survival looming in their very near future.” Among his conclusions:
The last page of his presentation pointedly notes what he called “The American People: A Crisis of Confidence in Institutions.” The accompanying chart showed that 78% of Americans have faith in the military — by far the most admired institution in America — but near the bottom was “television news,” with 28%.
While McCaffrey’s office failed to return several calls seeking comment — I was particularly interested to know whether any of his ample consulting clients would benefit from a war with Iran — Lauren Kapp, an NBC News spokeswoman, confirmed the existence of this meeting. She said: “We regularly host editorial board meetings with our editorial board staff,” and besides McCaffrey: “we have heard from top ranking current and former US Government officials” (she also says that they once heard from an Iranian ambassador to the U.N.). She added:
We are exhaustive in our conversation with people from various perspectives and expertise when we over a story of this magnitude. And we are confident in the level and breadth of the conversations we are having with representatives from all viewpoints.
Council for foreign relations, etc….
Not just current and former U.S. government officials and Generals, but also members of the “Council for foreign relations”: the diversity of viewpoints is staggering.
It is interesting to see the sources on whom NBC News executives rely to develop their understanding of the world, and it’s even more interesting to learn what they’re being told about that. The reason Barstow won a Pulitzer Prize for his two stories is because it revealed the merger between the the American media and the military establishment, many of whose members have all sorts of vested interests in Endless War. This meeting and document provides a nice glimpse for how this process continues to function.
UPDATE: Among the many attributes one might attribute to McCaffrey and his report, incoherence is near the top of the list. He does, as I noted, make statements suggesting imminent military conflict, including his claim that “there is a significant probability of Iranian escalation in the coming 90 days” and “they are likely to further escalate,” along with the title of his first page: “Creeping toward war.” But as several emailers point out, he also tacks onto the end of the discussion on the first page the assessment of “15% probability of major military action in the coming 90 days.” The document is devoted to making military conflict appear quite likely, though he places a relatively low percentage on “major military action in the coming 90 days.”
McCaffrey also purports to compare the military capabilities of Iran and Israel, though Juan Cole this morning has much more illuminating data in that regard.
UPDATE II: The Huffington Post has an article with this headline — “NBC News Fires Back At Glenn Greenwald’s McCaffrey Report” — which publishes the full statement issued by NBC in response to this story. Let’s examine it piece by piece, beginning with the first line:
The Salon piece is a woefully inaccurate, ignorant, insulting depiction of our editorial process.
That’s quite an ambitious set of accusations to prove. I’m looking forward to reading about all of the “woefully inaccurate” and “ignorant” aspects of my article (I’ll agree with the adjective “insulting,” though that’s simply the by-product of my describing NBC’s conduct). I will note that after a link to this article was sent by Salon to NBC spokesperson Lauren Kapp, she replied by email and complained about only one claimed inaccuracy: the inconsequential inclusion of the word “board” in her quote, which was immediately corrected (“She said: ‘We regularly host editorial board meetings with our editorial board staff’”). If the piece were rife with substantive inaccuracies, one would have expected her to identify them, or at least one; but perhaps they’re in NBC’s newest response. It continues:
Mr. Greenwald has stumbled upon a defining journalistic and organizational tool that differentiates us as a global news organization: our longstanding tradition of editorial board meetings with leading analysts and news makers. He chose to write the piece while not personally having one conversation with anyone from this news organization, so to critique how we do our reporting is quite ironic.
The claim that I did not “personally have one conservation” with anyone from NBC is disingenuous in the extreme. I worked on the reporting for this article with my Salon colleague Jefferson Morley. In addition to doing the work to write this, I took responsibility to try to get comment from Gen. McCaffrey’s office, while Jeff worked on getting comment from NBC. All of his communications with NBC were in the form of emails between him and Kapp, all of which were sent to me as they took place. I worked with him on the follow-up questions, and I quoted or otherwise included the entirety of Kapp’s responses to Jeff’s questions in this article. NBC knows all of this yet tries to imply, deceitfully, that I did not get its input in writing this. Then:
We listen to and value the views of retired Four-Star General Barry McCaffrey. He presented his thoughts on Iran in a recent editorial board meeting at NBC News. As have several senior officials from countries throughout the Middle East that represent vastly different world views. In similar sessions, we have received the views of current and former US government officials. We have been afforded the views of Israeli and other foreign governmental officials. We have heard from non-governmental organizations, respected journalists and opinion leaders.
NBC “listens to and values the views of” Gen. McCaffrey despite his ample conflicts of interest and other undisclosed commercial activities which David Barstow won a Pulitzer Prize for documenting, and in this case, those views are absurdly alarmist and fear-mongering. Without identifying from whom else they heard, it’s impossible to assess the validity of NBC’s claim that they invite to their editorial meetings those with “vastly different world views” when it comes to Iran, but suffice to say, both Kapp’s original response (which I quoted in the original article) and this latest one from NBC make clear that it is composed largely of government and military officials and the supporting Foreign Policy Community venues which exist to support them. That’s why it’s utterly unsurprising that NBC has produced junk propagandistic war-drum-beating like this about the Iranian Threat.
Note that NBC does not claim that any part of my discussion of its involvement in the Pentagon propaganda program — including the suppression by Brian Williams and the rest of its news division of all discussion of that huge story — is inaccurate. Nor does it dispute any of the facts I conveyed about McCaffrey. Indeed, despite its opening flurry of accusations, NBC does not even purport to identify a single inaccuracy in any thing I reported. Replies like this one — that are long on screeching invective and short on any identified inaccuracies — do more to bolster the validity of the original article than anything else could.
by NeonLX » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:22 pm
by 82_28 » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:37 pm
NeonLX wrote:Seriously: How do we stop it?
Nordic is right, of course...
I hate being made to feel helpless.
by seemslikeadream » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:32 pm
Hezbollah says Attack on Iran Would Set Middle East Ablaze
Israeli/US Officials Downplay Costs of Attack on Iran
- Common Dreams staff
UPDATE: (4:15 PM EST) Hezbollah says Attack on Iran Would Set Middle East Ablaze
Iran's chief negotiator Saeed Jalili made the offer to resume talks in a letter sent on 14 February. (Photograph: Raheb Homavandi/Reuters)
An Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program would set the Middle East ablaze, possibly drag in the United States and unleash a conflict beyond the Jewish state's control, the deputy head of Lebanon's pro-Iranian Hezbollah movement said today. Reuters reports:
"America knows that if there is a war on Iran, this means that the whole region will be set alight, with no limit to the fires," Hezbollah deputy Sheikh Naim Qassem told Reuters.
Qassem also said the movement's fighters, estimated to number several thousand, were better trained and equipped to retaliate against Israel than in 2006, when the Jewish state fought a month-long war in southern Lebanon.
"Gone are the days when Israel decides to strike, and the people are silent," he said.
"Israel could start a war ... but it does not know the scale of the consequences and it is incapable of controlling them."
The Hezbollah deputy said he believed Israel would try to drag a reluctant United States into confrontation with Tehran because it could not inflict sufficient losses on Iran alone. [...]
"Israel does not have the capability nor the courage to wage war by itself on Iran, while America has reservations because of the dangers of this war and because of the upcoming (presidential) election," Qassem said.
Earlier:
US officials who have assessed the likely Iranian responses to an attack by Israel believe an Iranian retaliation would include launching missiles on Israel and asymmetric attacks on United States civilian and military personnel overseas, according to a report in today's New York Times. Calculations expressed by Israeli officials show their willingness to accept an Iranian retaliation, even as they acknowledge it would be impossible to predict the scale or regional implications of a preemptive assault.
According to the NYT:
While a missile retaliation against Israel would be virtually certain, according to these assessments, Iran would also be likely to try to calibrate its response against American targets so as not to give the United States a rationale for taking military action that could permanently cripple Tehran’s nuclear program. “The Iranians have been pretty good masters of escalation control,” said Gen. James E. Cartwright, now retired, who as the top officer at Strategic Command and as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff participated in war games involving both deterrence and retaliation on potential adversaries like Iran.
The Iranian targets, General Cartwright and other American analysts believe, would include petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, and American troops in Afghanistan, where Iran has been accused of shipping explosives to local insurgent forces.[...]
In November, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said any Iranian retaliation for an Israeli attack would be “bearable,” and his government’s estimate that Iran is engaging in a bluff has been a key element in the heightened expectations that Israel is considering a strike. [...]
Their analysis, however, also includes the broad caveat that it is impossible to know the internal thinking of the senior leadership in Tehran, and is informed by the awareness that even the most detailed war games cannot predict how nations and their leaders will react in the heat of conflict. Yet such assessments are not just intellectual exercises. Any conclusions on how the Iranians will react to an attack will help determine whether the Israelis launch a strike — and what the American position will be if they do.
Israel downplays Iranian response; Missiles raining on Tel Aviv acceptable
A former Israeli official said the best way to think about retaliation against Israel was through a formula he called “1991 plus 2006 plus Buenos Aires times 3 or 5.” The reference was to three instances in the last two decades when Israel came under attack: the Scud missiles sent by Saddam Hussein into Israel in 1991 during the first gulf war; the 3,000 rockets fired at Israel by Hezbollah during their 2006 war; and the attacks on the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish center in Argentina in the early 1990s. Those attacks each killed 100 to 200 people, wounded scores more and caused several billion dollars of property damage. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the north had to be evacuated from their homes to bomb shelters or further south during the 2006 war.
But there is a broad Israeli assessment that Iran’s response to an attack would be limited.
“If Iran is struck surgically, it will react — no doubt,” said the former Israeli official, echoing Mr. Barak’s comments last year. “But that reaction will be calculated and in proportion to its capabilities. Iran will not set the Middle East on fire.”
“Is 40 missiles on Tel Aviv nice?” the official asked, summing up the Israeli calculus. “No. But it’s better than a nuclear Iran.”
Meanwhile, hopes for a peaceful settlement to the tensions rise slightly on the news that talks between Tehran and diplomats from the six major powers will resume. Reporting from The Guardian says negotiations are underway for resumed talks with the US, UK, France, Russia, and China on the same day that the Iranian Foreign Minister re-emphasized Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's decree that nuclear weapons are "a great sin".
An Iranian soldier participated in naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz last year. Iran could try to block, even temporarily, the strait to further unsettle oil markets. (Ali Mohammadi/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images)
The Guardian reports:
Sources said that although there are no high expectations of a breakthrough, there was a growing consensus that every peaceful avenue should be explored in the hope of avoiding a new conflict in the Middle East.
"We have to use every opportunity to test Iran's willingness to talk," a European diplomat said.
After talks between the political directors of the six powers, it is hoped an official response, probably offering to meet in Turkey in March, will be ready this week. It will be issued by Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief who acts as the group's coordinator. Ashton has said she is cautiously optimistic about the resumption of talks.
"And then all the things that come from that: where we're going to talk, what the talks will consist of … and what we need to do, what steps we need to take to move forward. So that is being discussed now, the political directors will meet me very shortly in order to tell me the results of those discussions and then we'll move forward from there," Ashton said on Monday. "I'll be in touch then with Iran."
The stakes and pressures at any new round of talks will be extremely high, as they will take place against a backdrop of worsening tensions, a military build-up in the Gulf and constant speculation that Israel may be planning air strikes against Iran's nuclear sites, which the west believes are designed to give Iran the capacity to make weapons.
Tehran says its programme is entirely peaceful, and has defied repeated demands from the UN security council to suspend the most controversial element, the enrichment of uranium. Unless new negotiations can break the deadlock, Iran will face an EU oil embargo in July and US financial sanctions against its oil trade at about the same time.
Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, in a speech to the UN-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, said he expected talks to continue and that he was optimistic they would proceed in the right direction. Reuters reports:
"I would like to re-emphasize that we do not see any glory, pride or power in the nuclear weapons, quite the opposite based on the religious decree issued by our supreme leader, the production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, are illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin," he said. [...]
In Geneva, Salehi accused the West of double standards for backing Iran's arch-enemy Israel, the only Middle East state outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and believed to be have the only nuclear arsenal in the region.
"We have clearly stated time and time again there are two alternatives in dealing with the Iranian peaceful nuclear programme. One way is engagement, cooperation and interaction. The other is confrontation and conflict," Salehi said.
"Iran is confident of the peaceful nature of its programme and has always insisted on the first alternative. When it comes to our relevant rights and obligations, our consistent position is that Iran does not seek confrontation, nor does it want anything beyond its inalienable, legitimate rights."
by Bruce Dazzling » Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:49 pm
by seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:56 pm
Netanyahu Coming to Washington to Demand Obama Commit to Military Action
- Common Dreams staff
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is headed to Washington next week for the annual meeting of the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. While in town, Netanyahu will meet on Monday with President Obama to demand that the President commits to military action aginst Iran.
Israeli officials say that Binyamin Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's 'vague assertion' that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. (photo/Jim Watson/AFP)
Obama is reportedly frustrated by what he sees as political interference by Netanyahu to mobilize support for Israel's position in the US Congress. Netanyahu met a group of US senators last week and complained strongly about Obama administration officials publicly opposing an Israeli strike on Iran.
Mr. Obama speaks to the AIPAC delegates Sunday morning and Netanyahu addresses the group Monday night. On Tuesday, Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will speak to AIPAC.
Israeli officials told the Associated Press this week that Israel will not notify the US before an attack on Iran.
* * *
The Guardian/UK is reporting this afternoon:
[...] Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is expected to raise the issue at a White House meeting on Monday after weeks of intense diplomacy in which Obama has dispatched senior officials – including his intelligence, national security and military chiefs – to Jerusalem to try and dampen down talk of an attack.
Diplomats say that Israel is angered by the Obama administration's public disparaging of early military action against Iran, saying that it weakens the prospect of Tehran taking the warnings from Israel seriously.
The two sides are attempting to agree a joint public statement to paper over the divide but talks will not be made easier by a deepening distrust in which the Israelis question Obama's commitment to confront Iran while the White House is frustrated by what it sees as political interference by Netanyahu to mobilize support for Israel's position in the US Congress.
"They are poles apart," said one diplomatic source. "The White House believes there is time for sanctions to work and that military threats don't help. The Israelis regard this as woolly thinking.
They see Iran as headed towards a bomb, even though they agree there is no evidence Tehran has made that decision yet, and they want the White House to up the ante. The White House has the Europeans behind its position but it's losing Congress." [...]
Israeli officials say that Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's "vague assertion" that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. The Israeli prime minister wants Obama to state unequivocally that Washington is prepared to use force if Iran's nuclear program advances beyond specified red lines. [...]
Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's "vague assertion" that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. The Israeli prime minister wants Obama to state unequivocally that Washington is prepared to use forceThe chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, told Congress this week that during a recent visit to Jerusalem the principal difference was over the question of how long to give sanctions and diplomacy an opportunity to work. "We've had a conversation with them about time, the issue of time," he said.
Dempsey was one of several senior US officials to travel to Israel in recent weeks, including Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper.
Dempsey infuriated Netanyahu with comments that it is "premature" to launch an attack and that an Israeli assault on Iran would be imprudent and destabilizing, and not achieve Israel's objectives. He also said that Iran is a "rational" player and should be treated as such.
Netanyahu met a group of US senators last week, including John McCain, and complained strongly about Obama administration officials publicly opposing an Israeli strike on Iran.
After the meeting, McCain criticized the White House position. "There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately there clearly is some," he said.
McCain described relations between the US and Israel as in "very bad shape right now" saying that differences over Iran have caused "significant tension". He appeared to side with the Israeli position in noting that "there is very little doubt that Iran has so far been undeterred to get nuclear weapons".
Last week, 12 senators sent the president a letter warning that he should not allow Tehran to buy time by engaging in fruitless diplomatic negotiations, expected to begin in the coming weeks. They demanded that Obama insist Iran halt its uranium enrichment program before talks begin.
More than half the members of the Senate have backed a resolution that some see as pressing for an attack in declaring that the White House should not pursue a policy of "containment".
Senator Joe Lieberman, one of the sponsors of the resolution, said it is intended "to say clearly and resolutely to Iran: You have only two choices – peacefully negotiate to end your nuclear program or expect a military strike to end that program."
Critics of the resolution said that it smacks of a congressional authorization for an attack on Iran. That view was reinforced when the sponsors declined a request from some Democrats to amend it to clarify that the resolution did not imply consent for war.
Israeli officials told the Associated Press this week that Israel will not notify the US before an attack on Iran. US officials scoff at the idea that Washington would not know an assault is coming, and the Israeli position may be intended to allow the White House to deny any responsibility.
Users browsing this forum: Elihu and 160 guests
